"Narrowing the focus to teams with the largest fan bases, assuming ratings will diminish if focus veers from them, becomes self-fulfilling. We don't get to know other teams, their players, a sense of what is at stake for them or their community -- all the things that drive interest and ratings. Of the Colorado Rockies, on the brink of the World Series, several commentators boasted, "I can't name three players on the team." Tired of that dismissive crack, one viewer from Utah fired off this message: "As employees of the 'world-wide leader,' you may want to consider how un-professional and myopic your coverage of the MLB playoffs has been. I'm pretty sure that if my full-time job was as a sportswriter, I'd be able to name the starting lineups for all MLB teams."

Lip

eastchicagosoxfan

11-12-2007, 06:52 PM

I think the East Coasters view ESPN as their own toy. Someone else may get it, but the changes have to come from outside of EsPN. Does ABC still own ESPN? The culture there has to change, and it won't change until some big heads roll. Would a move, to say, Omaha help?

doublem23

11-12-2007, 07:02 PM

Granted, I did not have cable at home until the late-90s, so I was never exposed to ESPN in its earliers incarnation, but I've always heard people complain that The Network really went downhill when Disney bought it.

Kogs35

11-12-2007, 07:02 PM

I think the East Coasters view ESPN as their own toy. Someone else may get it, but the changes have to come from outside of EsPN. Does ABC still own ESPN? The culture there has to change, and it won't change until some big heads roll. Would a move, to say, Omaha help?

firing a few people like george bodenheimer and josh kurwitz would help at first. and yes disney aka abc still owens espn

Oblong

11-12-2007, 07:20 PM

What really got me was during the 2006 ALDS. Game 2 was in a rain delay, eventually rained out. During the delay they went to the studio where Karl Ravech gave some scores then said they'll show more highlights "after the Yankee game".

I agree that ESPN went downhill fast after the ABC and Disney involvement. Then it became about the brand. It's nothing more than a big commercial for all the other stuff you can watch on ESPN/ABC or other Disney enttity.

When ESPN first got baseball in 1990 it was heaven. "Baseball every night that involves other teams besides the Cubs and Braves? It's own highlight show?" That was the season where a lot of no hitters were thrown and I remember seeing Stewart's and Fernando's on the same night. ESPN had a game on and cut into both.

DumpJerry

11-12-2007, 07:51 PM

When I told Curt The Cub Fan in my office about the Jones/Infante trade today, he said "who?" I told him Infante came from the Tigers. Curt told me he watched ESPN religiously during baseball season and Infante's name never figured prominently enough for him to know the name. I'm sure if Jones was traded for a AAA prospect from the Yanks or Red Sox, Curt (thanks to ESPN) would have known the guy's underwear size.

pierzynski07

11-12-2007, 08:06 PM

So you said the name Omar Infinte without saying "Detroit Tigers", right? Why would he, a Cubs NL fan, know about some AL utility infielder? Why would Infinte be mentioned on ESPN during? Did he do something amazing that wasn't shown?

:rolleyes:

DumpJerry

11-12-2007, 08:09 PM

So you said the name Omar Infinte without saying "Detroit Tigers", right? Why would he, a Cubs NL fan, know about some AL utility infielder? Why would Infinte be mentioned on ESPN during? Did he do something amazing that wasn't shown?

:rolleyes:
If Infante played for the Red Sox or Yankees and blew his nose successfully, ESPN would have broken into whatever they were covering to bring us up to date.

Hokiesox

11-12-2007, 08:35 PM

I watched ESPN religiously in my college years of 1997-2001, and the coverage of everything sports was superb. They had Dan Patrick and Keith Olberman showing highlights of every single game, and covered division races that didn't involve the Yankees. I guess the whole thing can be traced to Disney, but my guess is the crappiness that is ESPN today has more to do with the dumbing down of the journalist profession. To me, it's just one piece of the puzzle.

Lip Man 1

11-12-2007, 08:51 PM

ESPN today is NOTHING absolutely NOTHING like what it was when it started in 1979 and through most of the 80's.

Back them it was about journalism and reporting...period. Scores, highlites, commentary, games...

Not entertainment, made for TV sports movies, game shows like 'Stump the Schwab,' PTI or the other talk show crap.

This network has lost it way, sold it's identity to try to reach a broader audiance. Sports fans aren't enough to ABC...it has to reach housewives, pre teens, non traditional sports fans and all that garbage.

In other words like with newtork news it's about turning a profit or else.

Disgusting.

Lip

santo=dorf

11-12-2007, 09:15 PM

If Infante played for the Red Sox or Yankees and blew his nose successfully, ESPN would have broken into whatever they were covering to bring us up to date.
...and Fenway would've posted a "Thanks for the Memories Omar!" thread.
:tongue:

FarWestChicago

11-12-2007, 09:20 PM

ESPN today is NOTHING absolutely NOTHING like what it was when it started in 1979 and through most of the 80's.

Back them it was about journalism and reporting...period. Scores, highlites, commentary, games...

Not entertainment, made for TV sports movies, game shows like 'Stump the Schwab,' PTI or the other talk show crap.

This network has lost it way, sold it's identity to try to reach a broader audiance. Sports fans aren't enough to ABC...it has to reach housewives, pre teens, non traditional sports fans and all that garbage.

In other words like with newtork news it's about turning a profit or else.

I remember when ESPN covered sports and MTV played music videos. God I'm old. :o:

Hey now, you're not that old. I remember those days, too. I'd like to think I'm a young, good looking fellow... Who cares that I'm balding and have bad legs? :D:

FarWestChicago

11-12-2007, 09:33 PM

Hey now, you're not that old. I remember those days, too. I'd like to think I'm a young, good looking fellow... Who cares that I'm balding and have bad legs? :D:Hey, you are young. I was in my last year of college when you were born. :D:

DumpJerry

11-12-2007, 10:08 PM

I remember when ESPN launched. I wished we had that new fangled thing called "Cable," but it was not available yet.

voodoochile

11-12-2007, 11:11 PM

I remember when ESPN launched. I wished we had that new fangled thing called "Cable," but it was not available yet.

I was in Columbus in the early 80's for college and Columbus was an early adapter city for cable. It always pissed me off to come home to Chicago and not be able to get cable. When I moved to the northside in 1985 it was just getting to our area - Wicker Park just as it was starting to become trendy (translation - gangbangers were everywhere and at least two people got shot within 100 yards from my door while I lived there). Then I moved way north to "Edgewater Beach" which sounds cool, but was just as bad as the Wicker Park I had moved out of (at least our building was - we were reverse block busters, moving middle class people into apartments filled with gangbangers and initiating a trend of improving the neighborhood). By then Cable had come all the way in, but shortly thereafter, most of the cable stations were for ****.

I think I stopped watching Sportscenter in the early 90's - it was almost must see TV prior to that. I always attributed it to my getting older, but maybe it just turned into a crappy product and this old guy realized it like the rest of you did.

michned

11-12-2007, 11:44 PM

I remember when ESPN covered sports and MTV played music videos. God I'm old. :o:

Just think, there's been a whole generation that hasn't seen Australian Rules Football!

Nellie_Fox

11-12-2007, 11:46 PM

Hey, you are young. I was in my last year of college when you were born. :D:I was married and had a kid when he was born.

Just think, there's been a whole generation that hasn't seen Australian Rules Football!Boy, do I ever miss Aussie Footy.

ma-gaga

11-13-2007, 08:57 AM

Boy, do I ever miss Aussie Footy.

C'mon. The Basho is going on.

I always find it hard to complain when there is sumo to look forward to.

We need a "sumo smiley".

ahh... found one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Odor/Dohyo.gif

FarWestChicago

11-13-2007, 10:27 AM

Just think, there's been a whole generation that hasn't seen Australian Rules Football!

I was married and had a kid when he was born.

Boy, do I ever miss Aussie Footy.Aussie Footy was good stuff at 3am. :cool:

Nellie_Fox

11-13-2007, 10:33 AM

C'mon. The Basho is going on.

I always find it hard to complain when there is sumo to look forward to.

We need a "sumo smiley".

ahh... found one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Odor/Dohyo.gifYeah, and it was ESPN that got me hooked on sumo too. I'm following it via the Japan Times English language site, and of course the various sumo fan sites. It's getting tough, though, because now I have never seen most of the rikishi in action, just read about them.

SOXPHILE

11-13-2007, 11:11 AM

It says alot about a network that employs this guy ------->http://www.espnmediazone.com/bios/Talent/images/Smith_Stephen_A.JPG

in ANY capacity, and has him as the "NBA Expert", has him attempt to discuss the NFL or MLB, and shoves a talk show featuring him down the public's throat despite numerous polls showing that nobody likes him or would watch any show featuring him.

ESPN's Anything Yankees-Red Sox Agenda could be summed up with 2 separate, yet identical occurences in 2006 and 2007: The Baseball Tonight crew analyzed, counted down to, and then breathlessly did play by play FROM THE STUDIO, of Roger Clemens first start in "A" Ball on his way back to the big leagues. :rolleyes:

thomas35forever

11-13-2007, 12:15 PM

Yeah, and it was ESPN that got me hooked on sumo too. I'm following it via the Japan Times English language site, and of course the various sumo fan sites. It's getting tough, though, because now I have never seen most of the rikishi in action, just read about them.
I remember when I didn't have cable yet watching sumo wrestling on ESPN. Such an easy concept. The pictures they had going into and coming back from commercials would have given my aunt nightmares.

Paulwny

11-13-2007, 12:52 PM

I was married and had a kid when he was born.

Same boat, I had 2 kids.
If FWC is now saying he's old, damn , I'll have to stop saying "I'm getting old".
Thanks FWC. :whiner:

skottyj242

11-13-2007, 01:07 PM

In other words like with newtork news it's about turning a profit or else.

Lip

I don't see a problem with this. So they should lose money just so you're happy? I can't name one business that is exactly the same as it was in their inception and is still around today. As much as I like to complain about ESPN, I don't own the channel and have to option of turning off the channel if I don't like what's on. Now if it were a White Sox specific channel and all I we ever bombarded with was Boston and Red Sox crap, I would be upset.

Hokiesox

11-13-2007, 01:08 PM

It kills me that ESPN has champions league, they do so poorly with it. I love watching Sky Sports feed of everything on Fox Soccer Channel, I wish ESPN would sell champions league.

skottyj242

11-13-2007, 01:09 PM

Oh and by the way ESPN really sucked for awhile. I remember watching like the World Office Challenge where they had a bunch of lawyers going against a bunch of salesmen or whatever they were in like obstacle courses and stuff. Remember when they had bungee jumping in the X-Games?

chaerulez

11-13-2007, 01:13 PM

Granted, I did not have cable at home until the late-90s, so I was never exposed to ESPN in its earliers incarnation, but I've always heard people complain that The Network really went downhill when Disney bought it.

In the early 90's when I was around 10 or so I'd wake up and watch sportscenter before I went to school. They'd actually have a big box score/stat sheet graphic after every game highlight that filled up the entire scene. Instead of the little box they show in the corner now with a line or two of stats. It's things like that changed the entire philosophy of how ESPN runs as a company now.

FarWestChicago

11-13-2007, 01:14 PM

Same boat, I had 2 kids.
If FWC is now saying he's old, damn , I'll have to stop saying "I'm getting old".
Thanks FWC. :whiner:Ah, we're all the same now that I've crossed the threshold. :smile:

Fenway

11-13-2007, 02:26 PM

I have a tape of the late Tom Mees doing the Grand Final live from Melbourne.

http://www.break-fresh-ground.com/photos/785/673/47/45876.jpg

chisoxfanatic

11-13-2007, 02:43 PM

What are they doing in that photo? It looks like the Caber Tosses I've seen at the Highland Games at the Oak Brook Polo Grounds.

Nellie_Fox

11-13-2007, 03:00 PM

What are they doing in that photo? It looks like the Caber Tosses I've seen at the Highland Games at the Oak Brook Polo Grounds.That's Aussie Football. Those are the goal posts. Between the two big ones is a goal, worth six points, between the outer ones is a "behind," worth 1 point. The cool part is watching the guy in the white fedora and white lab coat come running out with the flags to indicate the goal or behind.

spiffie

11-13-2007, 03:03 PM

Having been to Opening Day of the 1998 AFL season and watching traditional rivals go at each other, I can safely say that there are few cooler sports in the world than Aussie Rules to watch either live or on tv.

Lip Man 1

11-13-2007, 06:07 PM

Skotj:

The issue is that this is supposed to be a SPORTS NEWS division....not an entertainment channel. Profits are supposed to be secondary in American journalism when it comes to reporting the news (in this case sports news as opposed to say the national network newscasts.)

That's the issue. The credo is to report the news or show the highlights, give the scores and so forth... not the nonsense they are doing now. It runs contrary to everything the news divisions (again in this case sports news) have done for decades, since the late 40's.

Hell it runs contrary to the principals ESPN itself was founded on. It's been corrupted, twisted, turned inside out.

And it's sickening.

Lip

soxfanatlanta

11-13-2007, 07:26 PM

Skotj:

The issue is that this is supposed to be a SPORTS NEWS division....not an entertainment channel.

Sorry Lip, I respectfully disagree.

ESPN = Entertainment Sports Network

It might not have been like that in the 90's, but it's been like this since at least 2000, IIRC.

Change the channel; I did.

Oh, and Disney ruins pretty much everything, IMO.

EndemicSox

11-13-2007, 07:34 PM

I agree that ESPN went downhill fast after the ABC and Disney involvement. Then it became about the brand. It's nothing more than a big commercial for all the other stuff you can watch on ESPN/ABC or other Disney enttity.

IMO, advertising has gotten out of hand, but I didn't watch television 20 years ago, so I'm not sure if it was better(or worse) back then. Writers are forced to pimp certain products/brands/services, and it simply kills my interest. It's all one big commerical/advertising campaign to me, and I'm not sure I want my kids exposed to it.

ode to veeck

11-13-2007, 10:08 PM

Just think, there's been a whole generation that hasn't seen Australian Rules Football!

I loved watching that stuff

Oblong

11-13-2007, 10:27 PM

Skotj:

The issue is that this is supposed to be a SPORTS NEWS division....not an entertainment channel. Profits are supposed to be secondary in American journalism when it comes to reporting the news (in this case sports news as opposed to say the national network newscasts.)

That's the issue. The credo is to report the news or show the highlights, give the scores and so forth... not the nonsense they are doing now. It runs contrary to everything the news divisions (again in this case sports news) have done for decades, since the late 40's.

Hell it runs contrary to the principals ESPN itself was founded on. It's been corrupted, twisted, turned inside out.

And it's sickening.

Lip

To be fair what does ESPN now present itself as? Do they claim to be a journalism and news outlet? What they are "supposed to be" is really whatever the owners want it to be. If the viewers don't like it then they don't watch. But apparantly enough do.

For me the good old days was when we'd have Sportscenter on ESPN and the Sports show on CNN (forget what it was called), with Fred Hickman and that other guy who escapes me, looked Italian or something. Like Jack Scalia. They were on at the same time. I remember for awhile one network consistently did the stories in terms of importance whereas the other would do it logically, ie baseball first, basketball first, hockey, etc. It was in a specified order.

MUsoxfan

11-13-2007, 10:33 PM

Just think, there's been a whole generation that hasn't seen Australian Rules Football!

I discovered it when I was at a sports bar in NYC over the summer. I couldn't grasp the rules even though I had a couple Australian guys trying to explain them to me. Wish it was more widely broadcast here.

I also miss the putt-putt championships on ESPN

FarWestChicago

11-14-2007, 08:37 AM

For me the good old days was when we'd have Sportscenter on ESPN and the Sports show on CNN (forget what it was called), with Fred Hickman and that other guy who escapes me, looked Italian or something.Nick Charles was Fred's partner. Those were the good old days. :smile:

skottyj242

11-14-2007, 10:34 AM

Sorry Lip, I respectfully disagree.

ESPN = Entertainment Sports Network

It might not have been like that in the 90's, but it's been like this since at least 2000, IIRC.

Change the channel; I did.

Oh, and Disney ruins pretty much everything, IMO.

Coudn't agree more, and since when is sports news? Is sports news? It's not like they have to give equal time to all parties.

Lip Man 1

11-14-2007, 12:14 PM

The journalistic principles are the EXACT same. It doesn't matter if you are covering a fire or a baseball game. Just FYI, skotty I was in TV sports for 16 years so I have a little background on it and the prinicpals behind it.

That's the crime. ESPN started that way, then sold out thanks to ABC/ Cap Cities and Disney.

Sickening.

If you want to ENTERTAIN the masses with made for TV movies, game shows, talk shows (which are nothing more then screaming matches) fine...have all that crap on a separate channel. But don't pollute the 'flagship' channel with that garbage and certainly not during their Sportscenter 'newscast.'

And no I do not watch ESPN anymore. I don't need to be screamed at by anchors, have my intellect insulted by morons dropping street slang like Stuart Scott and being force feed material specifically suited to different generations in an effort to grab viewers.

I just want the scores, the highlights, the games....period. End of discussion.

I'll wait for Comcast's new national show thank you.

And Nick Charles the other co-anchor on Sports Tonight was from Chicago.

Lip

ode to veeck

11-14-2007, 01:34 PM

I'll wait for Comcast's new national show thank you.
Lip

It's a golden opportunity to steal back the sports reporting crown into a format centered on being informative rather than self-aggrandizement for entertainment's sake. Hopefully, there's more attempts by competitors to come up with a better product beyond Comcast. FoxSports is not much different than ESPN these days.

SABRSox

11-14-2007, 01:46 PM

Another one of these threads?

Here's the mentality of the people who run the network: There's the East Coast, the West Coast, and the fly-over zone in between (which nobody cares about).

The West Coast games are on too late for anyone to really watch or care about, so they focus all their attention on the East Coast, build up product (Yankees vs. Red Sox) and once enough people think those are the only two teams worth watching (which is the case now with your casual baseball fan) they reap the profits every time those teams do something newsworthy. If there isn't any news to report, you simply create it.

And it works, because ESPN makes a boatload of money.

As part of a public company, ESPN isn't beholden to "journalistic credibility." They're simply beholden to shareholders, who want to maximize profits. There's no great injustice in any of this, as this is the way the system is set up.

Maybe things will change when ESPN moves to 4000 W. Alameda, but I doubt it. They know where the money is made, and it's not on teams like Colorado, Houston, St. Louis, or the White Sox.

spiffie

11-14-2007, 01:51 PM

The journalistic principles are the EXACT same. It doesn't matter if you are covering a fire or a baseball game. Just FYI, skotty I was in TV sports for 16 years so I have a little background on it and the prinicpals behind it.

That's the crime. ESPN started that way, then sold out thanks to ABC/ Cap Cities and Disney.

Sickening.

If you want to ENTERTAIN the masses with made for TV movies, game shows, talk shows (which are nothing more then screaming matches) fine...have all that crap on a separate channel. But don't pollute the 'flagship' channel with that garbage and certainly not during their Sportscenter 'newscast.'

And no I do not watch ESPN anymore. I don't need to be screamed at by anchors, have my intellect insulted by morons dropping street slang like Stuart Scott and being force feed material specifically suited to different generations in an effort to grab viewers.

I just want the scores, the highlights, the games....period. End of discussion.

I'll wait for Comcast's new national show thank you.

And Nick Charles the other co-anchor on Sports Tonight was from Chicago.

Lip
This may sound like a defense of ESPN, but really I don't mean it to be a defense of their actual product, but I guess of the idea behind it.

What exactly do you need this for? Not you in particular Lip, but you as the average tv watching consumer? Is there really a need for a very straight ahead "scores, highlights, games, period" tv show in an era where I can find out that information from anywhere in the world, anytime i wish, using any of about 5 different devices generally within arms reach? My phone gives me scores on demand, my computer gives me video when I want it, and ESPNNews scrolls the scores every few minutes just in case I don't feel like going 4 feet to my laptop.

I don't watch Sportscenter. I don't watch much sports-related tv period. When I do, it has to either have people I think know what they're talking about (PTI, some of the fantasy analysis on various channels, Outside the Lines, Real Sports) or serve some other, non-news purpose (sportscentury, HBO sports specials). And I suspect I'm not alone in that. In fact, I suspect I'm the ever growing majority. I believe ESPN recognized that issue and tried to address it.

And by addressing it, they made the ungodly abomination that is most of their programming. In place of analysis or insight is simply noise and rage. In place of cutting edge melding of technology and experience they simply have a lot of whiz-bang graphics and a talking head yacking. In place of trying to look at sports in a global perspective, we get an obsessive focus on all things New York and Boston. 1 point for idea, negative three million for execution.

EastCoastSoxFan

11-14-2007, 02:51 PM

I'll wait for Comcast's new national show thank you.The Comcast Network (CN8) advertises itself as "television for smart people."

Here's hoping the new national Comcast Sports Net is able to successfully position itself as "sports for smart people".

It sounds as though I'm not the only one who would deeply appreciate such an approach if it could be carried off successfully...

Here's hoping the new national Comcast Sports Net is able to successfully position itself as "sports for smart people".

It sounds as though I'm not the only one who would deeply appreciate such an approach if it could be carried off successfully...

I hope they can put out a quality product and provide some competition for ESPN. I think that has been one of the big problems. Nobody is pushing the clowns in Bristol and they can afford to take chances and go in different directions.

I watch the NFL Network for any of my pro football news. I think they do some great programming. Now, I realize not everyone gets this, but it is a great alternative to ESPN's football coverage, which is bad.

The MLB channel is set to launch in '09. If they can provide a quality product, it will also provide some competition with Bristol. I will certainly give it a long look.

These type of competitors can only help sports coverage.

PKalltheway

11-14-2007, 03:23 PM

Maybe things will change when ESPN moves to 4000 W. Alameda, but I doubt it. They know where the money is made, and it's not on teams like Colorado, Houston, St. Louis, or the White Sox.
It isn't necessarily making the White Sox or Rockies into "national teams," but it has more to do with the fact that ESPN promotes the Red Sox and Yankees like they're the only two teams that exist. I'm not saying they should ignore them altogether, but all 30 teams should get fairly equal coverage, or at least most of the 30 teams. That way, you don't have people saying that "we don't care if St. Louis and Detroit are playing in the World Series because we don't know enough about them." I remember a few years ago when the White Sox would still be in contention, and they sometimes wouldn't even show their highlights on Sportscenter.

I can't begin to say how many times I've heard from the so-called "experts" on ESPN saying "I don't know a lot about the Rockies." Well gee, if you don't know a lot about the NL Champions, how would you expect the rest of the country to know outside of Colorado? They're supposed to be one of our main outlets in sports information. And to think they call themselves "the worldwide leader in sports." They're basically telling everyone "we don't care enough to even bother to do the research on the Rockies, so you probably shouldn't care either."

Lip Man 1

11-14-2007, 04:30 PM

Hear Hear!!!

Lip

SABRSox

11-14-2007, 04:41 PM

It isn't necessarily making the White Sox or Rockies into "national teams," but it has more to do with the fact that ESPN promotes the Red Sox and Yankees like they're the only two teams that exist. I'm not saying they should ignore them altogether, but all 30 teams should get fairly equal coverage, or at least most of the 30 teams. That way, you don't have people saying that "we don't care if St. Louis and Detroit are playing in the World Series because we don't know enough about them." I remember a few years ago when the White Sox would still be in contention, and they sometimes wouldn't even show their highlights on Sportscenter.

I can't begin to say how many times I've heard from the so-called "experts" on ESPN saying "I don't know a lot about the Rockies." Well gee, if you don't know a lot about the NL Champions, how would you expect the rest of the country to know outside of Colorado? They're supposed to be one of our main outlets in sports information. And to think they call themselves "the worldwide leader in sports." They're basically telling everyone "we don't care enough to even bother to do the research on the Rockies, so you probably shouldn't care either."

I understand what you're saying, but from their point of view it's not only easier to focus only on two teams, it's also more cost effective. And apparently it's working, because they are a money making machine.

I'm sure the shareholders aren't complaining about the lack of coverage for the other MLB teams.

AZChiSoxFan

11-14-2007, 05:18 PM

Skotj:

The issue is that this is supposed to be a SPORTS NEWS division....not an entertainment channel. Profits are supposed to be secondary in American journalism when it comes to reporting the news (in this case sports news as opposed to say the national network newscasts.)

That's the issue. The credo is to report the news or show the highlights, give the scores and so forth... not the nonsense they are doing now. It runs contrary to everything the news divisions (again in this case sports news) have done for decades, since the late 40's.

Hell it runs contrary to the principals ESPN itself was founded on. It's been corrupted, twisted, turned inside out.

And it's sickening.

Lip

Lip, I totally agree with everyone you wrote here. On a secondary note however, just from the point of view of watching as a sports fan, SC makes me want to puke. I just can't take any more stupid comments from Scott Van Pelt and Stuart Scott, trying to be cute. Another thing they do that drives me nuts is that about 15 minutes into the show, they do a friggin recap of the top stories!!! Are you kidding me?!?!?! SC, circa late 1980's was the best show ever.

WLL1855

11-14-2007, 10:19 PM

...Another thing they do that drives me nuts is that about 15 minutes into the show, they do a friggin recap of the top stories!!! Are you kidding me?!?!?! SC, circa late 1980's was the best show ever.

Amen! It is totally absurd that an hour long program regurgitates 15 minutes of (horribly skewed) programming continuously. The government ran media in North Korea is less biased than ESPN when it comes to programming.

pierzynski07

11-14-2007, 11:10 PM

You all do realize that Colorado was a fourth place team on Sept 1, right?

Soxfest

11-15-2007, 12:33 AM

ESPN just reported A-Rod went to the bathroom at 9:43Est.........Highlights on the late Sportscenter! plus Josh Beckett eats a Ice Cream cone!:angry:

skottyj242

11-15-2007, 10:51 AM

The journalistic principles are the EXACT same. It doesn't matter if you are covering a fire or a baseball game. Just FYI, skotty I was in TV sports for 16 years so I have a little background on it and the prinicpals behind it.

That's the crime. ESPN started that way, then sold out thanks to ABC/ Cap Cities and Disney.

Sickening.

If you want to ENTERTAIN the masses with made for TV movies, game shows, talk shows (which are nothing more then screaming matches) fine...have all that crap on a separate channel. But don't pollute the 'flagship' channel with that garbage and certainly not during their Sportscenter 'newscast.'

And no I do not watch ESPN anymore. I don't need to be screamed at by anchors, have my intellect insulted by morons dropping street slang like Stuart Scott and being force feed material specifically suited to different generations in an effort to grab viewers.

I just want the scores, the highlights, the games....period. End of discussion.

I'll wait for Comcast's new national show thank you.

And Nick Charles the other co-anchor on Sports Tonight was from Chicago.

Lip

So what about The Hawk doing games? He's not right down the middle. How does Peter Gammons get into the Hall of Fame as a journalist?

Lip Man 1

11-15-2007, 11:49 AM

Hawk is hired and works for a LOCAL team (the White Sox) he does not work for a NATIONAL (so called) sports network.

That's the big difference.

Gammons was a terrific, first rate baseball writer for years before he went to the Eastern Sports Programming Network. Much of his Hall of Fame credentials were based on his years with the Boston Globe not necessarily ESPN. (Yes there was a time before ESPN, the internet and satellite TV!)